Answers to the European Commission on the ... - Eiopa - Europa

• existence of significant insufficiencies in <strong>the</strong> provisions
established for previous years;
• management claims costs;
• impact of possible agreements in existence between <strong>the</strong>
insurance undertaking and o<strong>the</strong>r insurance undertakings or
service providers.
A.49 The actuary should explicitly state which analysis he carried out and
which models he used in order <strong>to</strong> verify <strong>the</strong> sufficiency of <strong>the</strong> incurred
but not reported claims.
A.50 When <strong>the</strong> studies carried out by <strong>the</strong> actuary contemplate any case-bycase
based investigation, <strong>the</strong> sampling criteria considered should be
specified.
A.51 When <strong>the</strong> analysis undertaken by <strong>the</strong> actuary includes verification of
<strong>the</strong> calculation algorithms used by <strong>the</strong> computing system of <strong>the</strong>
insurance undertaking, this fact should be stated and indication should
be made of <strong>the</strong> procedures used in this verification.
A.52 When, for <strong>the</strong> purposes of <strong>the</strong> verification specified in <strong>the</strong> previous
paragraph, <strong>the</strong> actuary takes in<strong>to</strong> consideration work already
undertaken by <strong>the</strong> external audi<strong>to</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> insurance undertaking this
fact should be indicated.
A.53 Whenever <strong>the</strong> actuary has considered hypo<strong>the</strong>ses and/or models that
differ from those used in <strong>the</strong> analysis that served as <strong>the</strong> basis for <strong>the</strong>
report drawn up for <strong>the</strong> previous financial year, he should state this
fact, justifying <strong>the</strong> changes made and describing, whenever this is
considered <strong>to</strong> be materially relevant, <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> results arising
from such alterations.
A.54 The actuary should also present a comparison of <strong>the</strong> estimates
obtained for <strong>the</strong> technical provisions with <strong>the</strong> corresponding estimates
present in <strong>the</strong> report on <strong>the</strong> previous financial year, presenting
explanations for any significant differences found.
A.55 The appointed actuary should also present <strong>the</strong> sensitivity analyses
carried out in order <strong>to</strong> assess <strong>the</strong> degree of uncertainty of <strong>the</strong>
estimates obtained for technical provisions. In this context, <strong>the</strong> actuary
should take in<strong>to</strong> consideration different hypo<strong>the</strong>ses and/or classes of
evaluation models, contemplating different future scenarios.
A.56 When <strong>the</strong>re is a significant difference in <strong>the</strong> results obtained by means
of consideration of different hypo<strong>the</strong>ses and/or models, <strong>the</strong> actuary
should make a comment on <strong>the</strong>se differences, and also justify <strong>the</strong>
estimate that is considered most appropriate.
A.57 The actuary should make a comment on <strong>the</strong> suitability of <strong>the</strong> mortality
tables used in order <strong>to</strong> determine <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>the</strong>matical provision of life
assurance policies, in particular insurance policies offering lifelong
income and pensions resulting from occupational accidents, and should
233